ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No. CR 05-835
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
ARTHUR DEAN DAVIS, JR.
Appellant
v.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Appellee
Opinion Delivered May 11, 2006
PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF GRANT COUNTY, CR 94-
8-2, HON. PHILLIP H. SHIRRON,
JUDGE
AFFIRMED
PER CURIAM
A jury found appellant Arthur Dean Davis, Jr., guilty of aggravated robbery and, as a habitual
offender, sentenced him to life imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction. This court
affirmed. Davis v. State, 318 Ark. 689, 890 S.W.2d 602 (1995). In 2005, appellant filed a pro se
petition to vacate and set aside the judgment that requested relief under Act 1780 of the 2001 Acts
of Arkansas. The trial court denied the petition, and appellant now brings this appeal of that order.
This court does not reverse a denial of postconviction relief unless the trial court’s findings
are clearly erroneous or clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Greene v. State, 356 Ark.
59, 146 S.W.3d 871 (2004). A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to
support it, the appellate court after reviewing the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been committed. Flores v. State, 350 Ark. 198, 85 S.W.3d 896 (2002).
Act 1780 provides that a writ of habeas corpus can issue based upon new scientific evidence
proving a person actually innocent of the offense or offenses for which he or she was convicted. See
-2-
Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-112-103(a)(1) and 16-112-201--207 (Supp. 2003); see also Echols v. State,
350 Ark. 42, 44, 84 S.W.3d 424, 426 (2002) (per curiam). A number of predicate requirements must
be met under Act 1780 before a circuit court can order that testing be done. See Ark. Code Ann. §§
16-112-201 to -203 (Supp. 2003). A petitioner seeking testing under Act 1780 must first present a
prima facie case that identity was an issue at trial. Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-202(b)(1) (Supp. 2003).
Graham v. State, ___ Ark. ___, ___ S.W.3d ___ (June 24, 2004)